So now that the dust has finally settled and the LCS program is completely scrapped, how come the new Constellation-class is just basically a Eurotrash frigate? Can't we do something more innovative than copy France and Germany?
So now that the dust has finally settled and the LCS program is completely scrapped, how come the new Constellation-class is just basically a Eurotras...
What do you think it's missing that you think it needs?
They could have at least taken the primary good thing about the Zumwalts (automation) and put it on the Constellations.
That would require a brand new design and since the Zumwalts barely have enough operational experience to prove their own automation systems, let alone start building a whole new one based off of it, it just doesn't seem prudent for a new class that is SUPPOSED to be risk-free and using all off-the-shelf proven technologies.
it remains to be seen if automation is that great. Especially when it comes to damage control since they are obsessed with reducing crew size. The primary good thing about the zum is power generation and it's upcoming payload modules, not that it has any weapons or even a decent radar to utilize the excess power lol.
>it remains to be seen if automation is that great
>immense savings let you have more jets or ships to actually win decisive battles
It's pretty clearly worth it. Modern freighters and airlines are phasing out old pneumatic and hydraulics for similar reasons.
reread my post anon. I was referring specifically to automation to reduce crew sizes. They also did this with the LCS and it didn't work well. Also the zum was extremely overbudget so not a great example of immense savings kek
LCS was just an engineering boondoggle because of the obsession with going like 70 knots. I haven't read much about the Zumwalt besides that we only made 2 or 3 to the final spec, and the 4th got its composite super-structure replaced with steel which I think is just moronic.
I wanna say 3rd one got the superstructure swapped, cost saving measure apparently.
>LCS was just an engineering boondoggle because of the obsession with going like 70 knots.
Oh dear. You actually posted that.
Yep, I'm wrong and we know this because the Constellation is planned to also go 70 knots like the previous LCS was planned to.
>LCS was just an engineering boondoggle because of the obsession with going like 70 knots
Why'd they need to go so fast?
They were afraid of speed boat attackers and took the most moronicly difficult to engineer solution.
Outrunning torpedo attacks.
Bodies are cheap for the US, one of the reasons Euros/Japs/Aussies build their own ships is because how relatively over-manned US ships are.
>one of the reasons Euros/Japs/Aussies build their own ships is because how relatively over-manned US ships are
>Anzac Frigate
>3.5k ton
>One hundred and eighty fricking people to crew it
"not over-manned"
Should bring back the Hedgehogs and update them for modern audiences.
nice bottle washer
Boy do I have news for you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUM-44_SUBROC
Designed by the same guys who sell tires for tractors. Why are tractor engineers always such maniacs?
>Designed by the same guys who sell tires for tractors. Why are tractor engineers always such maniacs?
>Nuclear depth bomb
>"I don't know if something's alive down there, but I know for sure there won't be in about 5 minutes!"
For example?
>automation
>stealth
>survivability against modern anti-ship weapons
It's a downgraded version of the yuropoor ship it's based on because they removed all the RCS reduction design features. Shit is obsolete before it even enters service. It's a sitting duck.
>vastly better sensors, electronics and weapons
>more durable hull and American damage control systems
>downgrade
Because the US wanted a ship they could start building almost immediately and not spend 6 years of r and d on you mongoloid.
This plus they did a shitload of internal and external changes and modifications of the hull. It's very different then it's parent design.
Then they shouldve asked Japan for their Mogami design
>buy this loud and cheap ship for high end ASW work bro
It was a moon shot program like the f22. They don't always work but alot of the things researched go elsewhere. They always cost more. Alot of the f22 breakthroughs went into drones and f 35s
I think drones are cool, but the F-35B and C starting to disintegrate at around mach 1 is just terrible. TERN would totally kickass if it works though.
>disintegrate at around mach 1
do people still believe this? it's been deboonked for years.
They will just pretend that supercruise capability isn't baked into the platform. They will continue to cope about it until they finally figure it out for themselves some time around 2060.
you got the world's greatest air superiority fighter out of the F-22 program. You got a mid af corvette from the LCS
>mid
The Freedoms had a top speed of like 12 knots because of the dumbass combining gear issues. They also cut out the modules concept so it was a disaster.
>moon shot
LCS was purely for budget justification, the navy was looking for a role to fill in a post soviet collapse world where at the time no other nation had anywhere close to the blue water capability as the USN. This is why the Zumwalt had moronic guns for shore bombardment also.
US felt bad because allies cried that 'Murica never uses their shit. So this a sop, but very modified.
Improved Perrys would be better, but no.
>how come the new Constellation-class is just basically a Eurotrash frigate?
Because every american warship designed this millennium has been a failure.
>Can't we do something more innovative than copy France and Germany?
You could have bought type 26
eat shit moron Zumwalt was a tremendous success ruined by pure budgetary mismanagement
with the program in the state it is now clear the integrated cost would have been ~2.5bn per Zumwalt decreasing to ~2bn over time, similar to current Burke - in exchange would be bigger, have fancier radar, more advanced VLS, dramatically smaller crews, and access to the US' only decent naval gun in decades, instead it was shitcanned and CG(X) never happened even though that was a key part of naval planning and they are trying to make up the gap with "drones lol idk"
>and access to the US' only decent naval gun in decades
Why is this a good thing? The gun is a massive failure, large scale MAY have made it economically more palettable but it still wouldn't have been better than missiles.
>The gun is a massive failure,
met every single program requirement
>large scale MAY have made it economically more palettable
was under budget and ahead of schedule prior to Zumwalt production count dropping first to 7 then to 3
> but it still wouldn't have been better than missiles.
what the frick made you think the goal was "better"? are you moronic? it's supposed to be effective and cheap, for popping shitty little boats of pounding fortifications where necessary, as part of established USN strategy
I am seeing a lot of you being a whiny pissbaby about what should/should not have been part of the program, and not a lot of legitimate complaints with the delivery of the materiel
Meeting moronic requirements doesn't make it any better as a tool. Superior guns were made in the past in fricking South Africa and they used primitive ammunition to achieve similar gains in range. A multipurpose gun like that put into a second turret would have done the same job for a fraction of the price while sharing ammunition with the army's howitzers.
To put it into perspective
>Zumwalt proprietary gun range
150km
>A G6 Howitzer from over 20 years ago range
70km
Unsurprisingly both are inrange of AShMs of many different categories. It was absolutely not worth it to put that system on the Zumwalts. You're experiencing similar levels of danger for a huge increase in cost and loss in damage potential.
The AGS guns did not meet range requirements.
>So what we found was the advanced gun system has become a particularly hard challenge to get through, not so much the gun but the projectile.
LRLAP developed by Lockmart, nothing to do with the gun itself or capabilities therein. Mismanagement of LRLAP is a different subject, though I will say you shouldn't believe anything you read just because an Admiral said it. In particular, there were reports LRLAP did hit 83nm, so they may be using the excuse of it not hitting 100 nm (which was abandoned early on in favor of 80nm target) to shield accusations of mismanagement.
Range was only even brought up secondary to expense, which was still 100% DOD's fault.
>there were reports LRLAP did hit 83nm
Where?
I only know of the 59nmi test in 2005 and subsequent 45nmi test shots.
>You should have bought type 26
but couldnt because the program insisted that the base model the adopted design used had to have been built already,and type 26s are building but none finished yet.
A friendly reminder that Italian, French and American FREMM frigates are as different as they are similar.
>You could have bought an inferior ship
Bong's never learn, at least they are finally starting to upgrade the Type 45 with more VLS.
base type 26 is better than a FREMM particularly for ASW
not him but
>ship is better than ship 20+ years older
yeah no shit, call me back when type 26s are actually available
The first Hull is in the water being fitted out right now.
is the ship operative? no? thought so
Why does that matter? It was a moronic self own by the USN. Something they've gotten very good at in recent decades.
Does BAE have a shipyard in the US with spare capacity to build them at?
No idea, wouldn't be hard to partner with someone.
Type 26 will be ready before constellation.
>wouldn't be hard to partner with someone.
Someone that has production capacity?
Fincantieri Marinette Marine had to expand their facilities for the order and AFAIK most of the other shipyards in the US are tied up with the rest of the surface fleet orders, we're still trying to do 2 burkes and 2 Virginia-class boats per year on top of the rest.
>Type 26 will be ready before constellation.
lol, lmao
there is at least one type 26 in the water fitting out,
>one year late
>quarter of a billion overbudget
>not even produced the first one yet
but sure, it's such an awesome programme!
>one year late
There was a pandemic with yards shut down then doing social distancing mid build moron. Before that it was well ahead of schedule.
Type 26 was fitting out before constellation class steel was cut. Even with two years of sea trails planned commissioning is still 2026.
And even if type 26 was a year, two or five years later, it's still an entire generations of warship ahead of FREMM and operated by the UK, Canada and Australia.
that's a lot of cope for a single bong
>Everyone is the same
First time on an annoymous board?
Why is it cope when our domestic design shits on the one you had to import because you've forgotten how to design ships lol
Is the Type 26 going to break down in warm water?
No because it doesn't use a dodgy American component in its propulsion system.
That's a funny way of saying cooling requirements were based on only operating in the North Sea.
The USN wouldn't be using the Bong Type 26 just as it isn't using the Italian or French FREMM.
>built in a shipyard owned by an italian company using a derivative of an italian ship proposed by an italian shipbuilder
I mean...
Built in Wisconsin.
oh cool I guess Apple products are actually chinese now
If you took the iphone, replaced its SoC with one built in your country, replaced the mainboard with one built in your country, then replaced its battery with one made in your country (that's also slightly higher power), and then swapped out the screen, speakers, fingerprint sensor, etc all from your country, and then built it in your country.
The American FREMM is distinctly American. Using almost all american sensors and computers, as well as software (Aegis). They did go back to CAPTAS-4 for the towed array, so that's european, but basically everything else, including the generators was changed to american shit.
>dedicated ASW frigate
>cut the bow sonar for cost saving
???
1) Constellation is not a dedicated anti sub vessel.
2) Towed and dipping sonar are the primary means of finding subs.
Bow sonar is mostly only useful in the littorals, far less useful out in the open ocean, constellation is a blue water general-purpose frigate. It needs to keep up with the CSG, and a bulky bow sonar that hinders performance in both pure speed, and also how it handles in rougher sea states, will impact its ability to keep up with the CSG.
Bow sonar in 2023 is about as useful as the Su-57's wing leading edge radars: Not at all.
Bow transducers can put out far more energy, which is both useful on its own and when using the towed array to listen for the return.
Energy on the scale we can output now is so meaningless to submarines hiding in the thermocline. The towed array and helicopter magnetometers are far superior ASW tools.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. Bow sonars are more niche than they used to be, but it's still a valuable niche. There are pros and cons in the USN's decision, and it's really hard to say whether or not it was the right decision.
Considering they're usually going to operate in concert with at LEAST one Burke with a bow sonar, I don't think it'll matter much.
Don't forget that the Connie's primary job is frigate duties, which are often conducted solo or in small numbers, e.g., convoy escort. While I'm certain Connies will be used as carrier escorts (the Perrys were too, at times), their best use is to do all of the *other* missions, freeing up Burkes for carrier and phib escort duties, where their full Aegis systems are more valuable.
So, they'll probably operate a lot in situations where a bow sonar isn't available. That said, it's still a reasonable trade-off, because a bow sonar is a niche sensor that is mostly useful in shallow waters or in emergencies where a possible contact is detected far too close and needs to be verified and targeted *right now*. The helo is the primary ASW sensor, supported by the tail.
Bow sonars nowadays are more for mine avoidance.
At least that's what Euro navies use them for, primarily. Since this frigate isn't supposed to venture close enough to the coast for minefields to become an issue, it was removed.
The fixed-pitch prop is a bit of a compromise. The USN high command strongly believes any prolonged engagement with the PLAN is going to devolve into a chaotic melee. A fixed-pitch prop generates a fixed acoustic signature. Meaning that: a) US (also potentially UK and/or AUS) subs don't have to waste precious time figuring out whether a particular acoustic contact is friendly; b) US surface ships don't have to worry about getting blue-on-blue-d due to mistaken identity. Sure, fixed pitch props have decreased performance and/or economy compared to variable pitch ones, but the USN considers the trade-off worthwhile.
Thanks, learnedanon!
Thanks, I missed it in the scroll.
So it's gonna have AEGIS obviously. Did removing the bow sonar come with a compromise in ASW capability? Did the FREMM have bad seakeeping or something?
Does a fixed-pitch propellor have any performance implications?
Looks like we lopped off a big chunk of superstructure, too.
Aegis is best-known for its capabilities against aircraft and ASCM swarms, but these days, it's more like Windows for Warships. It's the basic OS used to control all of the major shipboard combat-related functions. Even the Freedom class, with no real SAMs to speak of, runs the Aegis-derived COMBATSS-21 software suite. So, it's not as big a deal as having Aegis used to be (in part because the size and weight of the computers required to run Aegis has decreased exponentially, making it far easier to install).
Removing the bow sonar is a compromise; it has pros and cons. See some of the posts in this thread batting that topic around.
FREMM has decent seakeeping, but the USN tends to run in rougher waters than the French and Italian navies.
I can't speak to the fixed-pitch propeller; I suspect there's a story there, but I haven't heard it yet. I wonder if anyone is thinking about the new 3D super-propeller design yet--obviously, that comes in fixed-pitch only, but it would offer fuel (and cost) savings in general, and reduced noise levels for ASW ships in particular.
Thanks, I wasn't aware AEGIS was basically the entire show now.
Other anons pointed out that the fixed prop also offers a similar acoustic signature, and in the expected chaotic melee of Pacific action against China, it would reduce blue-on-blue and be easier for allied subs to IFF.
No shit, the same weapon/sensor spec would be applied. But the hull is still far superior.
>huge mission bay and aviation facilities
>submarine levels of quietness
>superior propulsion arrangement
>big leap forward in automation
>quietness
totally pointless
we have spy satellites and observation drones everywhere these days
you're not going to hide something with a displacement in the tens of thousands of tonnes unless it's disguised outwardly
>submarine levels of quietness
I love this plasma stealth level of delusion/cope.
Look it up brainlet, not my fault if you get confused easily.
>thinks submarines use satilite data and not sonar to view their surroundings
>look up hilarious BAE marketing claims
Hmm yes.
You're really out of your depth here if you think differing propulsion arrangements are just marketing claims.
The claim was submarine noise levels my Bong apologist friend.
It does indeed have submarine levels of noise reduction.
The gearbox is the quietest in the world, the machinery is all enclosed in acoustic containers and suspended on isolated floors. The hull and huge fixed pitch propellers are designed to make minimal noise. The engines are high in the hull and above the waterline. The machinery section has anechoic tiling to reduce noise. The electric motors and diesel engines can allow the ship to be incredibly quiet at significantly speeds. The pipes are destined with out right angles to reduce and remove liquid vortecies.
>quiet at significantly speeds
Aha an autocorrect typo, how awful. Meanwhile you still don't know shit and type 26 remains the best ASW design on the planet.
Anon was mocking the idea that a surface vessel is quiet at significant speed.
>83 posts
>22 posters
Yep its that delusional bong again! Keep shilling a boat that is not operational and is close to getting aukus'd in Australia due to cost explosion.
>and type 26 remains the best ASW design on the planet.
When the frick did I say the Constellation class was better?
I simply said it's a general-purpose frigate, not an ASW frigate, and it's PRIMARY goal in life is to escort a carrier, if it can't keep up with that carrier particularly well, then what the frick is the point?
Why are you so fricking moronic?
It's a Bong apologist coping.
>it's PRIMARY goal in life is to escort a carrier
So is type 26
lol no the frick it isn't.
Your carriers are barely even designed to operate with a CSG.
Have you not gotten bored of being humiliated at every turn yet? Type 26 and type 45 are escorts for the carriers. I have literally no idea how this is news to you.
>The new Type 26s are intended to serve as escorts for the Royal Navy's two new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.
>A Ministry of Defence spokesman said:
>“The Type 26 Frigate is a cutting-edge warship, combining the expertise of the British shipbuilding industry with the excellence of the Royal Navy. These ships will be a force to be reckoned with, there to protect our powerful new carriers and helping keep British interests safe across the world.”
So keeping the jaffa cake and sausage roll supply chains secure?
Samegayging that hard kek
>being wrong and trying to cope your way out of it
Literally all you said is also true for FREMMs. Also reminder https://www.c6f.navy.mil/Press-Room/News/News-Display/Article/2230255/french-units-hook-6th-fleet-asw-award/
Lmao no it's not. You can't bluff your way out of this.
Now post an image showing where a Type 26's engines are.
similar location judging by the specific acoustic coating they're using
The tiling is below, but that doesn't tell you how high in the hull the engines are.
Sure, all combustion happens above the waterline. Only the electric motors are below. Have fun being humiliated, I told you that you were out of your depth.
Kek this kid really is something, why do you keep shilling things you don't understand?
>all combustion happens above the waterline
The gas turbine and 2 of 4 diesel generators are below the waterline my Bong apologist friend.
>The gas turbine and 2 of 4 diesel generators are below the waterline my Bong apologist friend.
The gas turbine is literally between the two elevated diesel generators. Holy shit do you even know what these things look like?
>Holy shit do you even know what these things look like?
I don't think you do considering your picture is the gas turbine and forward diesel generators which are below the waterline.
They are quite clearly not below the waterline. And the aft pair sit above the motors but have been removed in that image to let you see what's below.
Ah yes, forgot the part where you actually believed someone would put engines above the waterline
>Like the Type 23, the aft pair of DGs on the Type 26 are placed above the waterline to further reduce sound into the water.
It's not even the first Royal Navy vessels to do it. You can't win, I'm just too smart for you.
>Sperging wikipedia links
No you aren't, and again you don't understand how naval engines work. 10 seconds of googling would spare you the embarrassment
Oh yeah? What do you think your low quality image shows anon? You're not mistaking gas turbines for diesel generators on Type 23 are you? This is about to get even more awkward for you.
Thank you for the image proving what I said, most of the engine is underwater
You realise we're talking about two classes of ships right?
On the Type 26 the gas turbine and 2/4 the diesel generators are below the waterline.
>googling would spare you the embarrassment
Take your own advice son jesus christ.
Cool graphic, the amount of fuel used is insane at full power.
Samegayging AGAIN kek. Again stop shilling a non existent boat you moron
You just can't stop losing
What exactly did you win moron? Type 26 will just be another ASW ship, French Fremms are currently the best ASW platform, and Burgers chose the Italian design
He won at proving your an autistic homosexual mass replying to multiple people thinking its the same person, meds now autismo
The British are ASW specialists and the type 26 is shaping up to be a great ship in that role.
The type 23 is almost 40 years old at this point and have served well in that time. To be replaced by the type 23 (High end ASW frigate, in build, first of class due soon), type 31 (Low cost general purpose workhorse, also in build but earlier, first due somewhat soon) and type 32 (Still mostly on the drawing board, final loadout TBD, some say it's to be a drone mothership).
>To be replaced by the type 23 (High end ASW frigate
Type 26 even.
>comments on a graphic showing real world comparisons to the ships fuel usage
>REEEEEEEEE SAMEgay
Holy frick what an autistic freak.
>non existant boat
A boat is a submarine, a Type 23 is a ship and as far as im aware does exist.
>Try to explain that the Type 26 engine are above the waterline
>Get proved wrong, sperg and post pics showing engines above waterline on Type 23
Somehow still shilling his boat
My first post was on the T23 graphic you literal fricking sperg. I have no interest in your internet argument that clearly you are losing and having a tantrum about.
>Brought Type 26 in a Constellation thread
>Got BTFO by every poster
>Now resigned to autisticaly prove that *part* of the engines are above waterline
Please post that picture of the armpit Brimstone Bongshill
You seem to live in an alternate reality where you think you've won this argument lmao
>Projection
You lost.
>The gearbox is the quietest in the world, the machinery is all enclosed in acoustic containers and suspended on isolated floors. The hull and huge fixed pitch propellers are designed to make minimal noise. The engines are high in the hull and above the waterline. The machinery section has anechoic tiling to reduce noise. The electric motors and diesel engines can allow the ship to be incredibly quiet at significantly speeds. The pipes are destined with out right angles to reduce and remove liquid vortecies.
Got proven wrong
Simple as
Also
This FREMM? Lol
Where did any of this get proven wrong?
The part where the Bong apologist insisted the Type 26 has all of its combustion engines above water.
All Type 26 engines are above the waterline, the engine room is forward of the mission bay (below the exhausts) The engines are all located well above the waterline with only the gearbox and electric motor/shafts below.
Engine room in blue, engines in black, electric motors yellow, gearbox green, shaft in red (shaft actually extends through to the gearbox for GT running)
Only the aft two diesel generators are above the waterline moron
No, that's type 23. Everything is above on Type 26.
Another headcanon
>comments on a T23
>Sperg mass replies to me
>point out its my first post
>REEEEE TYPE26
Are you ok?
Still trying huh? What do you expect from all those posts? That people suddenly view the British as the godemperor of weaponry?
>Obsessed by the UK so bad he has a folder dedicated to them
Lmao rent free
They use literally everything they can get their hands on homie
Quietness is god for subs and to a degree useful for surface vessels
It's more that they wanted a *design* that had been produced and shook down already. FREMMs are in the water, and the changes made aren't *that* significant. T26 wasn't in the water at the time of the competition.
I can't fault them for being gun-shy after the disasters of LCS and Zumwalt.
The design of the Zumwalt has not been their issue.
>Why does that matter?
because they need frigates now, genius
>base type 26 is better than a FREMM particularly for ASW
Bong claim to justify buying a more expensive but less capable ship.
Type 26 is a whole generation ahead of FREMM. It's not even a fair contest.
>copy France and Germany
amazing how little you know about ships
refrain from making posts like this in the future
Because if there's one thing italians can do, is build good ships. Shame they ruin them by stuffing them full of other italians.
Should have gone T26
There is a reason the Bong apologist is sticking to the 'base' version of the Type 26 as their variant of it is inferior to the Canadian and Australian versions (as well as the Constellation variant of FREMM).
The Anglo wins this one hands down
Thanks, it's not really a fair fight though, this idiot only has opinions and they all seem to be wrong.
>how come
because even usa is tired of wasting money on boeing and LM
Could someone give me the QRD on the Contellation changes from the FREMM, assuming I have an at best tenuous grasp of naval warfare?
American weapons and radars with a British sonar system
FREMM already had the British sonar.
The American weapons and radar and other sensors is correct though.
"British" sonar
Sure thing Nigel, in the same way the Storm Shadow is British heh?
CAPTAS-4 is distinctly British.
The US originally planned to use an American towed array but they were having massive delays and cost overruns and finally some testing in 2021 went horribly to the point the navy started looking for alternatives and decided the best off the shelf towed sonar array was the British CAPTAS-4.
>Designed in France
>Manufactured in France
>By a French company
>70 British employees involved in maintenance
Truly a British product
Everything you said is wrong, congrats.
Compact active passive towed array sonar - CAPTAS - quite clearly isn't a French ancronym even if you were to know nothing about Thales UK or the half dozen other bauinesse that have had names on the door of these sites.
Pretty much all Thales' sonar stuff is from thales UK which is businesses acquired in the UK. It's all developed and designed here, pretty much all the manufacture happens here, final assembly usually happens in the customer's country.
Isn't Thales UK the old GEC Marconi outfit? Like how Selex is now Leonardo and Atlas Elektronik/Cassidian is now Airbus/EADS?
Man, all these acquisitions and mergers are crazy confusing.
Yes, and it was ferranti before. As with most British defence mergers and acquisitions it's easier just saying the name of the location and remembering what they do. I live in Edinburgh and the big BAE/SelesEX/Leonardo/whoever building changes hands regaulry and constantly gets a new sign. But you just remember it's not he big Edinburgh radar/EW facility
Low poly
>the LCS program is completely scrapped
Say what?
Probably just a troll. They've identified several updates and improvements that need to be implemented, but it's too expensive to apply them to the existing batch.
The LCS program has been switched to the Small Surface Combatant; the current production run will just get a handful of fixes and will be used as drone motherships.
The newest internal fight in the LCS programme is over the radar supplier. As usual, they went full moron all the way during initial procurement, and the two classes have two completely different sensor suites. Independence uses Saab's Sea Giraffe, while Freedom uses Cassidian's (now EADS/Airbus) TRS-3D. The point of contention is that LockSneed have upgraded the radar on the newest Freedoms to the TRS-4D, while Austal haven't yet switched to the latest Sea Giraffe version.
LockSneed are lobbying so that Austal, instead of installing the latest AESA Sea Giraffe, be asked to switch to the TRS-4D as well, "in the interest of operational and logistical commonality" (and obviously not because LockSneed are EADS's domestic partner for the TRS-4D).
>how come the new Constellation-class is just basically a Eurotrash frigate?
well consider this
its a proven platform
with solid weaponry
and most importan
WE CAN FRICKING BUILT IT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT moronic TO CREATE A LAW LIKE JONES ACT to literally backfire on our asses and destroy our ship building capacity